Author: Reading on Walden Bookstore

The debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is coming down to words.

Feb. 17 (Bloomberg) — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised their battle for the Democratic presidential nomination up a notch as they traded barbs over who has the mettle to take on the Republicans and win back the White House.

“It will take more than just speeches to fulfill our dreams,” New York Senator Clinton, 60, said at a Wisconsin Democratic Party dinner in Milwaukee late yesterday. “It will take a lot of hard work.”

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” Obama, 46, said in a speech following Clinton’s. “If we don’t inspire the country to believe again, then it doesn’t matter how many policies and plans we have.”

One fundamental difference between these candidates may be “words.” Obama believes that words “matter.” Clinton believes that “hard work” matters. The question is, do words matter? Do words belong in a political campaign? Can’t we do without words and just get to work? Reading on Walden Bookstore.

James Carville predicts that if Hillary Clinton does not win Texas or Ohio, she will not be the Democratic Party’s nominee. This must have been a difficult thing for Carville to say.

(CNN) — He hinted at a similar sentiment earlier this week on CNN, but James Carville – a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s White House run — was decidedly more blunt Wednesday on the impact a loss in Texas or Ohio would have on her presidential bid.

“Make no mistake,” Bill Clinton’s former chief strategist told the Orlando Sentinel. “If she loses either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done.”

Just another ominous sign of the continuing erosion of the Clinton campaign. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

The time for adopting “single payer health insurance” has arrived.

If I have one disappointment in the Presidential candidates that remain, it is that none of them are advocates for “single payer.” The only legitimate candidate running for President that was a true advocate of “single payer” was Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D – OH), who represents parts of the Cleveland area. To read more about his health plan, visit his website at www.dennis4President.

One consistent argument against “single payer” is that doctors oppose it. Not true. There is a group called Physicians for a National Health Program.

PNHP defines “single payer” quite simply:

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

Let me repeat an important line in their definition of single payer:

“delivery of care remains largely private.”

It is not the same as national health, as is practiced in Canada and England. Not that there is anything wrong with how they practice in those countries.

Another way to explain “single payer” is “Medicare for All.” PNHP makes some valid arguments related to cost.

The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 47 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

The savings alone from adopting this plan will be enough to insure all uninsured Americans. It is a travesty that any Americans must live without adequate health coverage. Even worse, too many Americans have to live with “zero” health coverage. We all pay for “inadequate health coverage.”

It is better we get out front on this issue now. It is our obligation to do so. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

Two exciting events will happen this coming November. First, the end of the George W. Bush era, our national nightmare. On a more positive note, we will surely elect a candidate that is not George W. Bush. While I totally support Barack Obama, any of the contenders takes us away from this low period in our history. America has lost its way, electing a man that was unfit to be President. And we did it twice.

In a sense, America will be “Coming Home” as Senator George McGovern intoned in his 1972 Democratic acceptance speech. McGovern was one of my favorite all-time Democrats because he is truly a decent, caring man who loves this country. He spoke out against the Vietnam, but that didn’t mean he was weak or necessarily anti-war. He was anti-Vietnam. You see, George McGovern was a World War II hero.

I voted in my first election that year in Winona, Minnesota (attending Winona State College, later was changed to Winona State University). I was 18 then. The Nixon administration had actually gone to court to stop students from voting on campus, citing residency issues. Nixon lost that battle and that has been law ever since.

And I proudly voted for McGovern.

McGovern lost in a landslide to Richard M. Nixon, yet Senator McGovern maintained his dignity and integrity all these many years later.

So much of what he stood for, resonates today. He was painted by Nixon as this wimpy dove, yet the fact was he was quite a war hero (World War II) and never used his war record to his political advantage.

He should have.

In his acceptance speech in 1972, he called for America to “Come Home.” Today, America needs to “Come Home.” In this excerpt about Vietnam, we can apply it to this insane war in Iraq. We could be in Iraq a hundred more years, but we cannot ever win (as Bush defines victory). This excerpt is haunting against the background of the 2006 election where Americans “thought” the message was bring our soldiers home. Many voted for Nixon in 1968 because they “thought” he was bringing the troops home, yet another 20,000 American boys died. How many more must die, before America comes home.

“And this is also a time, not for death, but for life. In 1968 many Americans thought they were voting to bring our sons home from Vietnam in peace, and since then 20,000 of our sons have come home in coffins.” George McGovern, 1972 convention

And then these closing remarks that apply to us today as much as it applied then.

From secrecy and deception in high places; come home, America.

From military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation; come home, America.

From the entrenchment of special privileges in tax favoritism; from the waste of idle lands to the joy of useful labor; from the prejudice based on race and sex; from the loneliness of the aging poor and the despair of the neglected sick — come home, America.

Come home to the affirmation that we have a dream. Come home to the conviction that we can move our country forward.

Come home to the belief that we can seek a newer world, and let us be joyful in that homecoming, for this “is your land, this land is my land — from California to New York island, from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters — this land was made for you and me.”

So let us close on this note: May God grant each one of us the wisdom to cherish this good land and to meet the great challenge that beckons us home.

And now is the time to meet that challenge.

Good night, and Godspeed to you all.

George McGovern, 1972 convention

Come home again America. We should be home sometime in November.

There will be one positive aspect of a November contest between McCain/Obama or a McCain/Clinton campaign. The great immigration debate issue being espoused by many unenlightened Republicans, conservatives and neocons, will be greatly diluted. The belief held by these groups is that we should “deport them all.”

Dowell Myers, author of “Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a New Social Contract for the Future of America,” argues that policymakers will have to think of immigrants as part of a solution rather than a threat to America, as posited by many in recent years. A demographer at the University of Southern California who directs the Population Dynamics Research Group, Myers believes immigrants and their children will have to help the U.S. meet the huge costs of boomer retirement.

The obvious flaw of the “deport them all” argument is that it is an impossible task. Practical politicians know instinctively, it doesn’t work. Certainly, this policy works with deporting 12 people. This policy works even with deporting 12,000 people. But how do we in any practical and sensible way even begin to deport 12 million people. That is equivalent to the population of the entire state of Illinois. That is a huge amount of people. I rarely hear how they propose to “deport them all.” The risk of even attempting such a move, by force, will have dire consequences. Just the threat of such a move is risky for the safety of our nation. What an irony. Because of perceived national security threats we will forcibly eject our own population and make our nation unsafe.

So what can we do.

Author Dowell Meyers argues in his book that these immigrants can be turned to a positive in helping to solve the coming “boomer retirement crisis.” He argues:

In other words, there will be fewer and fewer workers to cover the government’s growing obligations concerning the elderly. To finance programs such as Social Security and Medicare, “you are going to need every worker you can get,” said Myers. He estimates that immigrants can meet up to one-fourth of the challenge.

There is also the Lou Dobbs approach to immigration.

“This nation is English-only. Illegal immigrants should be in jail. I know it’s tough, but you know what? There’s a legal way to do business.”

On an appearance on 60 Minutes with Lesley Stahl, Dobbs addresses the issues of “deport them all” and the best he can come up with is “You wanna bet.” Here is the exchange.

He all but campaigns against the president’s guest worker proposal, and seems to suggest that all illegals should be rounded up.

“I wonder if you think that we can possibly deport all of those people. Is that something…,” Stahl asks.

“I’ve never called for their deportation,” Dobbs says. “But at the same time, when this president and open-borders, illegal-alien-amnesty advocates say, ‘You can’t deport them,’ my answer is, ‘You wanna bet?’ Because this is the United States.”

“We can’t even find them,” Stahl points out. “How’re you going to round them up? I’m serious. If you think it’s possible. How’s it possible?”

“I think this country can do anything it sets its mind to,” says Dobbs

Al Franken, candidate for United States Senator from Minnesota, has a more sensible approach to the immigrations problem. Here from his website, www.alfranken.com.

Here’s where I stand:

I believe we need comprehensive immigration reform.

The best way to deal with illegal immigration is to enforce – actually enforce – the law at the worksite. No wall is high enough to keep people from coming over it – or under it – if there are jobs waiting on the other side.

• Employers who disregard the law should be actually punished – with fines and, if necessary, incarceration.
• Worker identification should be truly tamper-proof. Fortunately, we have better technology than we did in 1986, so that goal is in reach with the help of biometrics. Of course, we must safeguard our civil liberties and privacy.

I don’t believe it’s practical to deport the 10-12 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. And I don’t believe in breaking up families. Instead, we should look to bring them out of the shadows and put them on a path to citizenship, providing that they:

• have been working
• have paid taxes
• have not committed any crimes since coming to this country
• speak, or are learning to speak, English
• pay a nominal fine

We should also ensure that those immigrants currently in the process of becoming citizens are not disadvantaged by these reforms.

I support guest worker programs for seasonal jobs. Last year, we saw crops go un-harvested in the Northwest because of the stalemate on immigration reform. But I am leery of guest worker programs that would create a permanent underclass of exploited workers or drive down the wages of American workers.

Finally, we should re-examine the economic and trade policies that have contributed to illegal immigration. Working to improve economic conditions in Mexico, which we’ve tried and failed to do with NAFTA, could help reduce the incentive many have to attempt to enter the United States illegally.

I don’t pretend to have the solution to this complex problem. What I do know is that author Dowell Meyers has a good start toward changing our attitude toward immigration. Another must read book about immigration with an opposite viewpoint is They Take Our Jobs!: And 20 Other Myths about Immigration by Aviva Chomsky. We need to open ourselves to other viewpoints and not read what re-enforces our own views. Our attitude toward “illegals” needs to change. I prefer the Al Franken sensible approach to the Lou Dobbs reactionary approach. Anyone can make inflammatory statements to gain viewership or for political gain. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

After Barack Obama’s great victory in South Carolina, it is time to focus on the real enemy in this campaign: The Republicans.

It’s the Republicans, Stupid, Volume 1.

The message should now be hung on all Obama headquarter doors and other open spaces, “It’s the Republicans, stupid.” It is now time for Obama, going into Super Tuesday, to show that he can and will defeat John McCain. It is now time to start defining and branding John McCain. Exposing him for what he is. A real Republican. He said yesterday that he doesn’t like labels, but now that you mention it, he likes to be called a “conservative Republican” in the Ronald Reagan tradition. Now we are getting somewhere. The beauty of it is you don’t even have to change, twist or mutilate his words because he’s a straight shooter. A Republican. A straight talking Republican. In the finest tradition of being a Republican.

John McCain will be a worthy opponent, but I say that Obama can defeat McCain on the issues. Obama can defeat McCain on being a “conservative Republican.” It is time to challenge just what he is straight talking about. For example:

Iraq War: McCain defends the “Bush Doctrine” and has said he will stay there for a hundred years. He gets votes from anti-war independents and when they catch on that he wants to stay there for a hundred years, they will support Obama in droves.

Social Security: McCain favors the Bush privatization plan.

War on Terror: If you are tied up for a hundred years in Iraq (see the Iraq War position), you can’t effectively fight this war. Pick a battle. Can’t win on two fronts.

Taxes: Likes tax breaks for the rich.

Economy: Likes tax breaks for the rich.

More straight talking to come. John McCain can really help us out by keeping up the “straight talk.”

John Presta.

Curtis Lawrence of the The Chicago Sun Times reported on March 14, 2000 that:

Candidates in the 1st District congressional race hit the television airwaves Monday night, once again showing little disagreement on issues. “I don’t think there are a lot of ideological differences,” state Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) who appeared on WTTW-Channel 11’s “Chicago Tonight” with incumbent Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and state Sen. Donne Trotter (D-Chicago).

“I don’t think there are a lot of ideological differences,” can also be applied to the 2008 Presidential race. The differences between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are negligible. The candidates need to stop bashing each other and unite behind the common political enemy, the Republicans. I certainly have my opinion on how the bashing startted (I’ve written enough about it), but we need to “Move On.”

The differences between the candidates are of style, energy, inspiration and vision. There are crucial differences about change and how we get there. And that is why I support Barack Obama. I think Hillary Clinton would make a fine President. I think John Edwards would make a fine President. Neither Clinton or Edwards would in any way embarrass this great nation, as our nation has been embarrassed by the current administration. Our standing abroad is at a low level.

We can split hairs on the issues, but they all want health care for all, the all want a peaceful world, they all want prosperity for all.

I believe that Barack Obama will make a “Great President.” He will bring an elevated level of style, high energy and inspirational vision to this nation. Yes, Camelot. “One brief, shining moment.” All that and more. He will take an already great nation and take it to the next level. President Obama would immediately elevate our standing in the world.

He is “one of us.” He looks you in the eye when he speaks to you. It was not too many years ago that he lived in a modest apartment living a modest lifestyle. He worked as a community organizer for small wages, because he cared. I saw many times over the years how he related to people. I saw him appear before 600 people that had never seen or heard of him before in a candidates forum and how he inspired and energized those people. And from there how it multiplied. Once I was in a parade with him and was impressed at the high energy he showed and how that high energy rubbed off on everybody around him. Whenever he spotted someone in the crowd in a wheel chair, he made sure to stop and speak to that person and offer an encouraging word. He had great compassion and empathy for people.

Barack Obama will take this nation to the next level. For the short term, the three candidates need to take the rest of these primaries to a higher, more empathetic level too. And Barack Obama will lead the way. John Presta.